May 19, 2012

An article by Jesse Walker at Reason (linked to this morning by Instapundit). Walker links to an article by historian Stephanie Coontz that describes the changes in marriage over time: Hetereosexual couples married based love and autonomous personal choice (instead of submitting to arranged marriages); heterosexual couples moved away from traditional gender roles; laws governing the obligations of heterosexual couples were rewritten with gender neutrality (to acknowledge the mutability of gender roles). These changes have made it harder to justify denying gay couples the choice to adopt the marriage format for their relationships.

Fine. I support same-sex marriage, and I like this argument in favor of it, as I like so many other arguments in favor of something I favor. But I want to layer in another topic. If opposite-sex marriage couples influence our understanding of same-sex couples, what about the reverse? Once same-sex couples are included in the norm, they will affect the norm. In this context, let's take a closer look about what Dan Savage — the very influential advice columnist and media figure — has been saying for years. Savage, you need to understand, is himself gay, but he's always aimed his advice primarily at heterosexuals. That's the idea: a gay male has a useful perspective.

Savage has for 20 years been saying monogamy is harder than we admit and articulating a sexual ethic that he thinks honors the reality, rather than the romantic ideal, of marriage. In Savage Love, his weekly column, he inveighs against the American obsession with strict fidelity. In its place he proposes a sensibility that we might call American Gay Male, after that community’s tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, from strict monogamy to wide openness.

Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy.

“I acknowledge the advantages of monogamy,” Savage told me, “when it comes to sexual safety, infections, emotional safety, paternity assurances. But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.”

The view that we need a little less fidelity in marriages is dangerous for a gay-marriage advocate to hold. It feeds into the stereotype of gay men as compulsively promiscuous, and it gives ammunition to all the forces, religious and otherwise, who say that gay families will never be real families and that we had better stop them before they ruin what is left of marriage. But Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs. Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners. And that, Savage says, destroys more families than it saves.

Much more at the link (which goes to a long NYT Magazine article from last year).

193 comments:

The problem is that, at the same time marriage was defined as a love affair (mostly for the common folk), the law was defining rights, privileges, and protections for the dependent spouse and children. The intent was for the nuclear family.

As far as Savage is concerned, I believe Miss Ann quoted him about 6 months ago as saying homosexuals had no intention of being faithful if they got same sex marriage. They would cruise and bug hunt and everything else the way they had done before.

Savage seems to be kind of the homosexual Joe Biden, let him go and he's the best argument in the world against same sex marriage.

One other thing to keep in mind about Savage WRT what he told the very trusting reporter for the Gray Lady is that he has often expressed contempt for heterosexual sex and sexual practices.

Ann Althouse said...

Once same-sex couples are included in the norm, they will affect the norm

That, I think, is the problem. They will always be outside the norm.

Granted, there are heterosexuals who like to cruise and whatever, too, and, in an ordered society, not what we've had since the Lefties have tried to reorder it with the "Do Your Own Thing; If It Feels Good, Do It" idea (which is failing IMHO), they would be considered outside the norm, too.

PS The whole idea of marriage in Western society is monogamy. If you don't intend to abide by it as a society or as a group, what's the point?

Unless I'm right, of course, and it's all about the insurance and securing a place as a protected, privileged class they way they are in San Fiasco.

But people in monogamous relationships have to be willing to meet me a quarter of the way and acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted.”

OK. I acknowledge it. We willingly gave up a big thrills in the early innings.

Now acknowledge, Mr. Savage, the otherwise unattainable peace, strength, fulfillment and full spectrum passion that we are now experiencing in the late innings.

It is pure silliness to celebrate the ability to feel when it is clear to anyone with the eyes to see that such bacchanalial celebrations eventually cause one to loose their capacity to feel.

I'm not agreeing with Savage. I'm putting 2 things together for discussion purposes.

Have the discussion, please. Inferences about what I think here are wrong. I don't support adultery!

"I'm sorry, I love your blog, but this is the worst article I have ever read."

That's a silly statement. The point of linking to the article is to show you Savage's opinion, in case you didn't already know it.

I'm concerned that the continued evolution of the meaning of marriage will be something like that. There's an ongoing process of defining marriage, and with ssm only beginning to gain acceptance, there is already a move to erode the expectation of sexual exclusivity in marriage.

I hold no brief against same-sex marriage. I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place. But I maintain that gays will abandon the institution of marriage wholesale once they have an iron-clad guarantee that it is permitted to them. It is less the desire to participate in the institution that drives the same-sex movement than it is a desire to be included. After all, marriage doesn't have a particularly strong hold on heterosexuals these days. Why should homosexuals be any different?

My experiences in knowing same-sex couples is that they can have monogamous and stable family lives.

Homosexual relationships have a reputation as being quite unstable - witness the cheering by the New York State Bar when Andy Cuomo bought off the 4 Republicans and 2 Demos in the NY State Senate to clear the way for same sex marriage.

I think we are in a frenzy right now of political movement, and it will be a while to see what finally happens to marriage.

If you're asking specifically how ssm will change it, look to Roe v. Wade. We have millions of abortions and, at the same time, a tremendous attitudinal shift towards pro-life.

So I think there will be a flurry of gay marriages and changes in the "norm" talked about in the NYT, etc. Then a two-tier system will emerge: religious-based marriage versus just marriage, like I say, based on romance and easily disposed of.

Sort of like the two-tier society we have already, with the middle classes opting for traditional, stable marriage and the rest "coming apart" as Charles Murray termed it.

Hetereosexual couples married based [on] love and autonomous personal choice (instead of submitting to arranged marriages); the mass introduction of cults talked heterosexual men into becoming faggy in the 60s; laws governing the obligations of heterosexual couples were rewritten with cult-controlled women dominating men in mind (to a Bowie soundtrack about the mutability of gender roles). These changes to this slice of society have made it harder for that slice to justify denying gay couples the choice to adopt the marriage format for their relationships. Men and women who were never infected with cultish thinking still strenuously disagree.

Homosexual relationships have a reputation as being quite unstable based on what? Do you actually know any same-sex couples?

Who you might know isn't the point. Societal statistics are.

Canuck said...

And I hear it's a nightmare, like many other things in Canuckistan.

yeah, gay marriage brought down our economy and sparked the Great Canuckistan Housing Crash and young married couples can't find work and CaliforniaProvinceStan for example what a mess and we're drowning in Debt..

I take it lack of an answer is recognition I'm right.

PS What Harper did is in direct contravention to what the advocates of same sex marriage have been doing in this country for years.

Andrew Sullivan has made a similar argument in "Virtually Normal". And I'm afraid that marriage divorced from fidelity, or the expectations of fidelity, will render the societal benefits of marriage null.And I have no idea how society recovers from something like that.

Research done on male-male LTR couples found monogamy to be the exception, not the norm. Information from Netherlands/Sweden/Denmark/Norway, where same-sex marriage has been legal for some time, have found much higher divorce rates for same-sex couples (particularly lesbians) than for straight couples.

Savage is a relic or product of yesteryear. Of a liberal culture that dreamed, and dreams, of physical, material, and ego instant gratification without consequence. It is a culture which promotes societal, biological, and evolutionary dysfunction.

Of course marriage and, in general, commitment, is difficult. It requires compromises of individuals involved. Whether it is marriage or community, the distinction is one of degrees. With both, it requires planning and the mutual understanding of expectations. This was supposed to be accomplished while dating, but that process was distorted when it was equated to receiving "benefits."

Marriage is a social construct engendered by the natural order of humanity, which is established to promote a commitment between a man and woman in order to create an environment suitable to raising their children.

Savage and other "liberal"-minded individuals should recognize that optimal liberty requires self-moderating behavior. There are few needs and many desires, where the latter are principally to satisfy self-gratification. His suggestion that many individuals are incapable of controlling their voluntary behaviors bodes poorly for the viability of a free society.

Anyway, there is a natural or God's order. We can choose one or the other, but we cannot reasonably reject both. Not without consequence. They are tempered or influenced by the enlightened order (i.e. consciousness). We can and should identify reasonable compromises which are compatible with individual dignity and evolutionary fitness.

No, I said same sex marriage had been a mess in Caniuckistan and Canuck didn't have an answer, except misdirection.

Mockery of dumb, ill-informed commentary is never misdirection. It's just good time management on the part of the person doing the mocking. But perhaps you can come up with some evidence to support your contention that Canada has just gone to hell in handbasket (hell in handbasket, I tells ya!) now that SSM is recognized up there.

ndspinelli says:Up until recently, gays scorned marriage and took pride in being different. Marriage was for straights and uncool. What caused the paradigm shift?

I'm pro-gay marriage, but this is a good question. I'm guessing it's because most gay and lesbian people want to live the sort of stable, successful bourgeois lifestyle that most straight people want to live. And they are right to want that. That lifestyle is the lifestyle is the best one for most people. Not for everyone, of course, but for most people.

Here's an anecdote on that point. A friend of mine worked for an old gay man who was a fairly well-known artist in more underground, avant-garde (if one can use that term in this day and age) circles. He told her he didn't really understand what a lot of younger gay people were fighting for, because when he was growing up the great thing about being gay was that it meant you never had to get married or join the army. But then again, he was an alternative sort of fellow regardless of his sexuality.

Here be the dirty little secret nobody will openly acknowledge. The thing that really frosts gays' cupcakes, the thing that really gets their tights all balled up in a twist, the thing that really cheeses them down inside where it counts, is the simple fact when they come face-to-face with biology 101 they are forced to confront the enduring reality that no matter what progress they supposedly make, no matter how much the rest of us redefine "normal" to accomodate them and make them feel better about themselves, they can never have what heterosexual couples have and have always had: the biological imperative that their love will create new life, new life unique to them and their love. And bottom line, that's why --while they may self-describe as "gay"-- they'll never be truly happy.

Reading the wikipedia article on marriage caused my views to evolve. I figured wikipedia is nearly useless for anything political because of party obsession and reality field distortion but with marriage they would have to duke it out obsessively until the result is something settled that everyone could finally agree, so a definition that suits everybody by dint of descriptive prescriptive force. It might have changed since I read it. I was impressed, deeply, and my mind just opened right up so now I can say that I honestly really do not care one single bit what who how or why. The page is brilliant, it makes marriage appear to be magically anything at all, and all at once. A different thing to nearly everybody. I was using my parents as a model and now I see quite clearly that is only one facet of a much larger phenomena. They call it an institution but something that flexible, I still say okay, but, ha!

You’re asking for a study about my personal experiences? If statistics claim one thing but your personal experiences prove it different, what do you believe?

Again, homosexuals have been marginalized by Western society over the centuries. The fear and hatred is ingrained into our psyche. The statistics might reflect a different picture if homosexuality was accepted and those persons were fully embraced by society through the ages.

"And I hear [gay marriage in Canada] is a nightmare, like many other things in Canuckistan."

Yes, of course there can be no doubt you "heard" that. Then a couple comments later you say that because someone makes fun of this idiotic comment, they prove you right. What sort of fucked up planet do you live on anyway?

I'm warming up to Gordon Ramsey, yeh?, if I can just overcome a few irritating quirks.

Last night a show was about a guy running an Italian restaurant into the ground. 26 yrs old, living with girlfriend, her parents involved to half a million in the restaurant. The guy is arrogant so Ramsey has to tear him down, completely down, then restore. At length Ramsey prevails basically the way dogs prevail, the top dog way and the arrogant lad is now putty in his hands. I spelled that word puddy. They had already stated earlier during the discovery phase that the situation was holding back their marriage. I must be certain there was much more to it than what was shown, but they edited it to appear that Ramsey took the arrogant young owner aside, and in Taming of the Schrew I'm the boss of you now fashion, there in the kitchen, produced a wedding band and said, "make her an honest woman." (!)

The guy was blown away, speechless, and now he is pretty much like mush. "This is from you?" He accepts the gift from Ramsey. Now in front, at the end of opening nigh, I suppose, everybody is there the guy proposes on the spot! Witnesses appear genuinely choked and verklempt. With the proposal. Knee bent the whole thing.

Then Ramsey says, "Well, I went ahead and arranged a wedding." They got dressed up and had a wedding right there on the spot where he had just proposed. So it appeared. Everybody gleed.

At first I was like no this is wrong wrong wrong, and then within a minute I was like oh, I see, it really is simple as that.

Of course, it hasn't done anything - yet. Canada's had gay marriage for seven years, do you suppose the full results of grand social engineering experiments like this become apparent so quickly?

Radically changing social institutions that have evolved over thousands of years is a dangerous game, all the more so because the changes can be implemented immediately while the effects aren't seen for a generation of two.

Isn't that one of the basic arguments that is breaking down our society today? Work is hard and boring! Let's do something more fun! Having this child would be hard and boring! Let's do something more fun! __________ is hard and boring! Let's do something else!

When your argument to not do something is that it requires work or giving up some things then everything begins to lose its value, and pretty soon none of it is "worth it" anymore.

All BS. The "law prof" knows nothing about the natural law basis of our society and constitution. What part of "law of nature and nature's god" is so hard to understand?Homosexual "marriage" is against the law of nature, and has no role in the propagation of the citizenry. Therefore the federal government's support of it is illegal and baseless. Obviously the students in her class don't learn much.

Law of Nations ch. 212:""The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."

Zeb Quinn: they can never have what heterosexual couples have and have always had: the biological imperative that their love will create new life, new life unique to them and their love. And bottom line, that's why --while they may self-describe as "gay"-- they'll never be truly happy.

Savage marriage is not an advancement, it's a regression. Human beings are hardwired with certain emotions, jealousy being one. If you get away from monogamy, you won't have less jealousy, you'll have more. Probably the biggest societal benefit of marriage is that is calms people down. They're not putting their energies into sexual conquests, a pastime that easily becomes (and does become for most single, young people) all-consuming, so those energies are available for other endeavors, such as raising children, working, and contributing to the community. Savage's vision of marriage is terribly unstable.

I'm tired of this modern thinking that sex is some kind of hobby, that lots and lots of thought needs to be put into it. What are one's exact desires? Is there any strange thing that could be introduced to amplify the pleasure of it? Would it be better with more people? All silliness. People should develop broader interests. Kink is so narrow.

"ssm" is one prong of the multi-prong eliminationist attack on human populations. It's a mobile political-economic raiding force, one of several belonging to the ideologue trusters and boomers. Used now in coordination with greenshirts, for double envelopments.

Plus, the real value of gay marriage is as a stabilizing and conservatizing force of gay people, just as it is for straight people. Gay marriage has nothing to do with rights, in my opinion. Legal marriage is necessarily discriminatory. That's the whole point of it, conferring special benefits on partnerships of special benefit to society. Savage is trying to strip out a major part of marriage that makes legal marriage worthwhile for society. If you're going to do that, the state may as well not bother with marriage at all.

"Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges,"

Marriage is *because* monogamy is hard.

Christian sexual mores are *because* people have urges.

What a world it would be! What a fabulous world it would be if people did not have urges and if people found fidelity trivial!

But when one's whole entire existence finds meaning from the notion that one's URGES are not to be denied, it's not surprising that one would casually suggest that ones' urges are not to be denied.

The notion that someone might *need* more than one partner is an argument for rape. The notion that someone *needs* a partner at all is an argument for rape. Does bi-sexual mean a person has to have one of each sort of partner? Or is it another term for slut?

I'm willing to entertain the idea that "gay" is a real thing and that a homosexual person could have a relationship with another homosexual person within the context of marriage... of constrained monogamy and constrained fidelity and the commitment to a future together that is almost entirely about self-denial.

But if marriage is going to *change* to mean that self-denial of urges is an unacceptable element of it, then the barbarians at the gates want in, only so they can destroy what other people have and what has served to civilize us.

"Up until recently, gays scorned marriage and took pride in being different. Marriage was for straights and uncool. What caused the paradigm shift? "

The AIDS epidemic scared a lot of gays, some of them friends and patients of mine. Suddenly fidelity seemed the answer. The way to achieve that is gay marriage, as though behavior is influenced by appearance. Before AIDS, there was no interest among gay men in marriage. Maybe there was some among lesbians, a few of whom made the mistake of using gay male friedns as sperm donors.

Althouse wrote: There's an ongoing process of defining marriage, and with ssm only beginning to gain acceptance, there is already a move to erode the expectation of sexual exclusivity in marriage.

This suggests a causality that isn't there. (I'm not saying that you meant to imply causality, I just want to make it clear that it's not there.)

Yes, there is an ongoing process of defining marriage. But the move to erode the expectation of fidelity in marriage precedes same-sex marriage beginning to gain acceptance.

About the same time that Lawrence was handed down, the Missouri Supreme Court decided, in Helsel v. Noellsch that the state was no longer interested in upholding the expectation of fidelity in marriage.

Culturally, we've been eroding the expectation of fidelity in marriage for quite a while longer.

I should explain... "needs" are like "rights." If you truly need something, like oxygen, then you must have it and being denied it is an assault on you that you've a natural right to resist with violence.

So saying "need" in the context of more than one partner is either arguing that you have a "need" that others have no right to deny you, including providing for that need, or it is merely self-indulgent hyperbole where you justify getting what you want because you want it and if you had a little bit of discipline or self-control or were less self-consumed, you could master it.

If anyone was interested, anymore, in mastering their human/sinful nature, to be sovereign over their own being.

No, no one is interested in that any more. "Nature" isn't something to dominate and subdue, it's an excuse, a license, a mandate.

Brilliant! Make the easy road a virtue and call everyone who values the hard road a hater.

You wrote: Legal marriage is necessarily discriminatory. That's the whole point of it, conferring special benefits on partnerships of special benefit to society. Savage is trying to strip out a major part of marriage that makes legal marriage worthwhile for society. If you're going to do that, the state may as well not bother with marriage at all.

I think what makes marriage worthwhile for society is the expectation that it is lifelong.

The definition of heterosexual marriage has "evolved" and the addition of ssm will "evolve" it even further. The effect is always negative to children and families. I don't have to know a same sex couple to know this. It's pretty clear to me that the evolutions taking place in marriage are part of the general degrading of morality. I don't just mean sexual morality. I mean the sense that if you make a commitment you keep it, that if you have a child you owe the child a decent upbringing, that you honor your promises, that you do the hard things required to make life better for others besides yourself, in short that your world is more than an endless pursuit of pleasure or sensation. Focusing all your attention on what gives you a thrill at the moment just can't produce lasting happiness. Calling morality boring and sex killing shows just how ultimately shallow your worldview is, and finding later that you can't keep getting the thrills you crave will be far worse than being bored or sexually dead. Spiritually dead is infinitely worse.

I think the real question is, how will gay activists change the nature of marriage.

Like Freeman says, the notions of fidelity and commitment are what is important. Ordinary gay people who value commitment are already living up to it. Savage I would guess would rather not, and would like to "expand" marriage to validate his lifestyle (and freak out straight people).

An explanation of divorce rates: "Again, homosexuals have been marginalized by Western society over the centuries. The fear and hatred is ingrained into our psyche. The statistics might reflect a different picture if homosexuality was accepted and those persons were fully embraced by society through the ages."

This could be studied by selecting other ostracized groups and figuring the statistics on their marriage stability.

If I were to hypothesize in advance of such a study, I'd guess that "predator-pressure" has the opposite effect, and works to keep people married if they continue to like each other or not.

I would *guess* that every gay couple that divorces does so with the knowledge that people will point at them as a reason that gay people shouldn't marry, and that this would create huge pressures to remain married.

What mechanism of being excluded from society do you think makes people less likely, instead of more likely, to stick it out?

I didn't know there was a stereotype that gay men "compulsively" have sex. Gay men are promiscuous, and it's not a stereotype. I think they are promiscuous because it is fun, not because they feel they have to be promiscuous.

The problem with the marriage debate is nobody seems willing to actually debate marriage. Instead its setting up and knocking down a long series of strawmen. As of writing this, there are 65 comments, of which maybe 5 make an actual attempt at debate; the rest are just blathering.

I don't like Dan Savage, but he is presenting an obvious truth and a clear argument; in relationships we often lie about who we are or conceal it. His solution is open marriage. I think that's a terrible solution. Suppressing everything our companion may find distasteful (or might like, but may be disapproved by your religion) is also a terrible solution.

Is the goal of marriage to a good relationship on each others terms or on a religions or society's terms? It honestly seems like many here are arguing the latter. (Of course, someone will now argue that I'm saying only the individual is important. I'm saying no such thing, though will ask how do you deal with a marriage where one or both are truly miserable?)

Finally, I've yet to hear a cogent argument of why same-sex marriage, polygamy or any other type of union affects YOUR marriage.

Is he asking for something substantially different than Newt's kind of marriage?

Is anyone supportive of Newt's kind of marriage? That's the whole problem. Savage wants to make that kind of marriage more common. Awful! The hope is that that kind of marriage remains a freakish outlier.

Savage is patently disingenuous in his mouth-service (doorknobs, not something else) to the virtues of monogamy.

At bottom, he's an unregenerated libertine: "sexual death", apparently his rhetorical approximation to the notorious "lesbian bed death" which he has refitted and projects upon heterosexual couples, is far more dreadful to him than any threat of disease or, qua Whoopi, death-death.

The definition of heterosexual marriage has "evolved" and the addition of ssm will "evolve" it even further. The effect is always negative to children and families.

That is absolute, utter, bullshit. HOW have changes to marriage "always" negative? Do you really believe that marriage was better when the woman was chattel? Do you think honor killings or even shunning were good for children and families? You are being extremely disingenuous about about the realities, both legal and of society norm, of what marriage once was.

I wish it were so that Newt's marriage were an outlier, but I don't think so. RFK, Jr, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and just about every other celebrity couple fits this model of the post-divorce marriage of affair partners.

One hundred years ago, some states had laws that specifically prohibited such marriages.

And while I don't support Savage's model of negotiated non-monogamy, I think it's more ethical than the Newt Gingrich model of marriage.

What other form of human behavior that is comparable to the deeply personal trait of sexuality and that has also been ostracized by society would you study to determine the impacts of that ostracized activity on the stability of marriage?

Peter Hoh said...I wish it were so that Newt's marriage were an outlier, but I don't think so. RFK, Jr, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and just about every other celebrity couple fits this model of the post-divorce marriage of affair partners.

Peter's argument: Marriage is rotten already so what could make it worse.

He ignores people who never made it worse nor want to make it worse. He wants to fuck with their ideal too.

@Peter Hoh: I think you're good guy at heart. I think you're just defending Savage because you don't want to hurt the feelings of friends or neighbors, or students of yours, or whatever it is that motivates you on this issue. That would at least be more honest.

Chickelit, serial marriage as practiced by Newt Gingrich is legal. Non-monogamous couples are allowed to marry. Non-monogamy in marriage is not penalized by the law. In many states, it does not figure in to divorce decisions re. distribution of property, child custody, spousal support, etc.

The Newt Gingrich model of marriage may have no defenders, but it is more of a threat to marriage than the Dan Savage model of marriage.

The Christians, among other religious groups, want to keep the government definition of marriage to their approved version. Therein lies the problem. Christians have put the government above their own God. Fuck government-approved marriage. Leave that to the gays.

Sounds like Dan Savage is proposing a Cargo Cult version of marriage. All the accoutrements, none of the substance.

Is he asking for something substantially different than Newt's kind of marriage?

I always love watching gay supporters argue two wrongs make a right - it also makes their claims to gay normalcy so convincing.

Hey, Pete, do you ever notice that Newt's further ambitions keep getting hung up on this single issue? That's because we frown on it. Which means your vision of what's occurring is skewed, if you think we're going to want more of it, but with a gay twist.

Chickelit, read this long piece from Fukuyama: The Great Disruption. Fukuyama isn't cheerleading this development, just describing it and putting it in context.

Fukuyama: Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries.

Straight people have already redefined marriage. And they've redefined it to something that is no longer defined in a way that necessarily precludes same-sex couples. That's not the same as saying that marriage has become worthless.

Like Freeman at 12:39, I think that "the real value of gay marriage is as a stabilizing and conservatizing force of gay people, just as it is for straight people."

If my grandmother's ideas of marriage were still held by the overwhelming majority of Americans, we wouldn't be debating same-sex marriage.

And if that were the case, if our cultural understanding of marriage were similar to what my grandmother held, I probably wouldn't be arguing for same-sex marriage.

I don't like Dan Savage, but he is presenting an obvious truth and a clear argument; in relationships we often lie about who we are or conceal it. His solution is open marriage. I think that's a terrible solution. Suppressing everything our companion may find distasteful (or might like, but may be disapproved by your religion) is also a terrible solution.

The answer is simple and I preach it every day, to no avail:

Get off the Narcissism Train and admit when you fuck up.

Spouses refuse, gays refuse, blacks refuse - Hell, we can't even get Ann or Glenn to do it.

Rather than giving the legal advantages or civil marriage to non-same-sex couples, why not remove all legal advantages of civil marriage altogether from all people and treat every person the same as every other person regardless of who he or she chooses to love?

Conserve Liberty: I'm not a legal scholar, but I don't think that marriage fits neatly under individual rights. Marriage is a privileged relationship, much like the relationship between children and parents.

Transfer of property upon death of one spouse, distribution of assets upon dissolution of marriage, making health care decisions for an incapacitated spouse, and other legal aspects of marriage can't be resolved with a "treat every person the same as every other person" approach.

NEWS FLASH! - There are many same sex couples in the United States who have been together for many years. My partner and I have been together for over 40 years. That means we've spent a life without most of the legal protections that couples are granted to a couple of impulsive drunks who get married in Vegas on a whim.

Fortunately, the state of California's RDP (registered domestic partnership) law grants virtually all benefits of marriage to domestic partners including property rights. California requires RDP couples to file a joint return and the IRS has ruled that since property law is a state issue, RDP couples must file individual federal income tax returns that reflect the couple's common law property. (DOMA prevents filing a joint Federal return as that would apparently destroy the institution of marriage.) Irrelevant? No, because it's these sort of mundane life issues that married couples take for granted which same-sex couples are denied in most of the US. For example, lifelong partners have been denied the right to be together when one is dying in a hospital or in hospice care.

The issue is simply treating other people with respect and dignity and having the humility to admit that you don't know (and shouldn't know) the intimate details of other people's lives. The truth is that most people long for a loving, supportive relationship to celebrate the good times and endure the difficult ones. So, please stop the uninformed slandering of "them" and start practicing that "love thy neighbor as thyself" stuff instead.

In what way is marriage a "stablizing" force? Do we mean simply that it's good for society for people to be monogamous for public health reasons? Or is this about the need for men to "settle down" and be motivated to work hard rather than play X-Box in mom & dad's basement? If you take away the desire to provide a suitable stable environment for children, what reason is there for the State to provide legal recognition of a particular living arrangement?

Given the exceedingly high rate of births to unmarried women, and the fact that it shows no sign of slowing, I think there's a strong case to be made for saying, "we need to either fix or give up on marriage first, before making it harder, like a leaky boat adding more passengers without fixing the leak first."

Anecdotes are perfectly useless. I know plenty of gay people who are stable. I know just as many who will bang anybody who walks. Which is the same as straight people.

I don't make a ton of opinions on people based on the tiny few I know...well, except for the whole "Southerners are racist" since the number of racists I knew in NJ dramatically outnumbered the number I know in SC.

If statistics claim one thing but your personal experiences prove it different, what do you believe?

Most would assume that the number of people in a group they know is a tiny, tiny fraction of the national total.

Again, homosexuals have been marginalized by Western society over the centuries.

Can you name a society that didn't "marginalize" them? Your writing indicates it is a specific weakness in Western society, yet Western society is so dramatically more accepting of them than any other society out there, I'm curious as to when the other societies decided to start marginalizing them.

The fear and hatred is ingrained into our psyche.

Fear?

The statistics might reflect a different picture if homosexuality was accepted and those persons were fully embraced by society through the ages.

The purposes for marriage will change. In time, the purposes will be whatever the marrying couple says they are. Maybe I will marry my neighbor's illegal yardman so he can have American citizenship. Or maybe I'll marry his daughter so I can become a citizen of her country. Or so I can get health insurance, or her pension, or whatever else you can dream up.

Because once we all get to define marriage however we'd like, we can marry for whatever reasons we'd like -- or no reason at all -- and it's nobody else's business that we're not marrying for love or monogamy.

I'm not suggesting this is good or bad, just that it is what it is. Though I might find a little comfort -- might -- if some of you can show that I'm wrong about the direction marriage seems to be taking.

Newt's marriage points out the degree to which we have already redefined marriage in this country.

And I'm saying we haven't - that Newt's redefinition is a mirage, manifested by his being part of the Baby Boom, a group so large normal society hardly got a say against what it wanted.

But now, as their numbers are waning, so is their power, and what they've wrought is finally coming under scrutiny - and found wanting. These are cult beliefs, not some natural manifestation of American tradition or character, that - like abortion, men-hating Family Law, and ObamaCare - subversives are trying to force through, and on us, before we slam the door behind them. It ain't going to happen. Don't be fooled:

The difference in the conversation just in the time I've been blogging - from masculinity and machismo being ridiculed to everyone wondering where the real men are - has been quite gratifying and revealing to me.

Time may march slowly, but the hippie era will be over in an instant,...

Lawyer Mom, who says that you can only marry for love and monogamy now?

For what it's worth, this business of marrying for love is a rather new development in the long history of marriage. And it's a likely source of many of the changes that the last two centuries have wrought on marriage.

Show of hands: consider the concept of a "next-of-kin" declaration, to allow such an individual the various rights accorded one's next-of-kin -- visitation, medical decision-making in case of incapacity, presumed heir in case of death, etc.? Wouldn't this solve most of the practical problems of unmarried relationships?

Well Lawyer Mom, marriage used to be about property. Marriages were arranged by parents. Women were the property of the man unable to enter into contracts on their own, etc. Marriage was definitely not about love or monogamy - at least for the husband. In titled households "droit du seigneur" allowed the head of the household (Count Whatsis or Duke Whosis)to sleep with the bride before her new husband. And then there's that old Bedouin custom of displaying the bloodied sheet after the consumation of the marriage to "prove" the bride was a virgin.

Oh, and that pesky business settled only a relatively short time ago in this country when all sorts of states refused to recognize marriages performed by other states (Plessy v Ferguson). Of course, they're still doing that. But it's ok - God used to frown on bi-racial marriage, but she apparently got over it. Now it's just same-sex couples that upset the deity.

If not, then in a homosexual couple, does one take on male attributes, actions, thoughts, responsibilities, etc, and the other take on female attributes, actions, thoughts, responsibilities, etc?

If yes, then SSM is perfectly fine.

If the answer to both are "no", (and they are), then SSM does not serve the same purpose/function as heterosexual marriage.

The evolution of marriage, as described in the linked article, has been along a trend of lowering of quality standards.

SSM marriage will continue to that trend by cementing the definition of marriage as merely a societal version of a Facebook Relationship Status.

Why should we want to lower standards/quality of something people value?

Why do SSM advocates want lower quality standards?

What is gained from lowering standards in society?

People say that they are unhappy from judgment of others...but those people are usually unhappy from inside themselves, not from external judgment.

Dan Savage is one of those people.

Unable to face what is inside him that makes him unhappy, he blames society.

This is typical liberal philosophy: problems are always someone else's fault, and it is always someone else who should change or give up something to make you happy.And when you ask "why?" the answer is always a variation of "you're a bigot!" or "because I want it!" or "shut up!".

SSM is a bait and switch, and has always been so.

The inherent dishonesty and anger of SSM advocacy should convince all open-minded people that SSM is not something to support.

Well, if straight people are doing the same as the gays, what good are the statistics? Anecdotes are very useful to putting a human element on so called irrefutable statistics.

Yes, most would assume that the number of people in a group they know is a tiny, tiny fraction of the national total but so far my experience concerning people in same-sex relationships who love each other and are committed to each other is 100 percent.

Homosexuality was accepted and practiced by the samurai in Japan. As far as your comment that Western society is so dramatically more accepting of the gays, is that the reason so many states have or want to pass amendments against same-sex marriage?

Do you seriously doubt there is not fear and hatred directed towards gays? See Perkins, Tony and Fischer, Bryan for just a couple of examples.

Jane - no it wouldn't and it hasn't. One lesbian couple vacationing in Florida with legally executed Health POA's experience demonstrates the problem with that sort of "solution." One partner had an anurism, went into a comma and was hospitalized. The other partner was refused admission to the hospital room despite producing the document. Some people just love to kick others who they don't approve of. Isn't that the lesson of the Good Samaritan? Someone's in distress - walk by, ignore them - that's what Jesus would do, right?

Well, if straight people are doing the same as the gays, what good are the statistics? Anecdotes are very useful to putting a human element on so called irrefutable statistics.

Given the scarcity of any person's knowledge and lack of diversity in terms of regions of living and what have you...no, it isn't terribly useful.

Yes, most would assume that the number of people in a group they know is a tiny, tiny fraction of the national total but so far my experience concerning people in same-sex relationships who love each other and are committed to each other is 100 percent.

Mine is significantly less than 50%.

Does that mean ALL gays are, basically, sluts? Nope. Not even most of them necessarily.

Of the ones I know, yes, a lot of them are hyper sluts.

Homosexuality was accepted and practiced by the samurai in Japan. As far as your comment that Western society is so dramatically more accepting of the gays, is that the reason so many states have or want to pass amendments against same-sex marriage?

As opposed to other cultures that view homosexuality as a crime? Yes, considerably more tolerant.

As far as Japan, Japan's unwillingness to handle anything outside of the norm isn't exactly an unknown thing.

Gay marriage, last I checked, isn't legal there. Nor is that even up for consideration.

Do you seriously doubt there is not fear and hatred directed towards gays? See Perkins, Tony and Fischer, Bryan for just a couple of examples.

Personal experiences are useful in helping me form an opinion on the subject as in any other issue. You even admit to a figure of something less than 50%. Should all be condemned because of the actions of the entire group? How about heterosexual marriage which experience around a 50 percent divorce rate?

Japanese culture and the major religions in Japan do not have a history of hostility towards LGBT individuals.

Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them.

Some people intrinsically just need to lie. It doesn't matter how open the rules are or how safe the space is; they just want the forbidden, the ability to hurt and disappoint, and nothing consensual will ever replace it.

"Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them."

I find his repeated use of the word "need" very telling. IMHO, the word "want" would be more honest. Anybody who "needs" flirting is terribly immature - as is anyone claiming "we can't help our urges". Why, I have refrained from the "urge" to wring the necks of the various bosses I have had over the years....in addition to many other urges I have had.

Maybe I am more special than I realize with my uncanny ability to rein in various "urges"!

Jane: Show of hands: consider the concept of a "next-of-kin" declaration, to allow such an individual the various rights accorded one's next-of-kin -- visitation, medical decision-making in case of incapacity, presumed heir in case of death, etc.? Wouldn't this solve most of the practical problems of unmarried relationships?

For straight couples, these rights are bundled with marriage. It's not clear that unmarried straight couples want these rights. If they wanted them, they'd marry.

Now if you want to argue that we should unbundle these rights from marriage, you are free to do so. I don't support this idea. I think these rights ought to be bound up in the responsibilities of marriage, along with the expectations of marriage, which I think we ought to strengthen.

In your response to Dave, you mistakingly claim that Dave wrote that the hospital broke the law. He didn't, and in reading the Wikipedia article about the case, I see no evidence that the hospital broke any laws.

Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes.

Some people "need" to kill homosexuals. Yet, Savage expects them to restrain their impulses for good reason.

Sometimes, not doing what you "need" is the sign of being a nadult.

Personal experiences are useful in helping me form an opinion on the subject as in any other issue. You even admit to a figure of something less than 50%. Should all be condemned because of the actions of the entire group? How about heterosexual marriage which experience around a 50 percent divorce rate?

That figure is nigh useless.

They compare the number of weddings in a year with the number of divorces in a year, no matter how many years those marriages lasted.

Utterly irrelevant.

And using bad laws, like no fault divorce which spiked this, to justify SSM is insanity.

I have no beef with SSM. If people vote for it, I'm all for it.

I don't buy the legal arguments, at all.

As far as hate and fear, what typically is the reason for hatred?

If somebody hated Andy R here, could you honestly fault them? Not all homosexuals are like Palladian, who is sane and rational. More than a few are batshit crazy morons like Andy Sullivan and Dan Savage.

If somebody despised either of them they would have ample reason outside of whom they nail to hate them.

Japanese culture and the major religions in Japan do not have a history of hostility towards LGBT individuals.

If you judge them by the identical standards you judge us by --- they are unquestionably hostile.

Conserve Liberty: I'm not a legal scholar, but I don't think that marriage fits neatly under individual rights. Marriage is a privileged relationship, much like the relationship between children and parents.

Transfer of property upon death of one spouse, distribution of assets upon dissolution of marriage, making health care decisions for an incapacitated spouse, and other legal aspects of marriage can't be resolved with a "treat every person the same as every other person" approach.

You understand my point precisely. Take away the privilege of marriage in the civil sense, so that all COUPLES are treated equally.

Or accept the fact that same-sex couples want the same civil privileges hetero couples enjoy.

Let the Church take care of the religious and society take care of th mores, but leave the law out of the discrimination.

Conserve Liberty, surely you're not suggesting that all couples should have the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage. A couple that is just dating, for instance, wouldn't want these rights and responsibilities.

read the Wikipedia article. It seems we're talking apples and oranges. I'm suggesting a universally-recognized legal status, not a simple Power of Attorney agreement.

Re: the statement that "the responsibilities of marriage" should be an attendant requirement to such a legal "next of kin" status: I don't see #1 what the relevance of these responsibilities are (are you thinking of the fact that spouses are expected to provide material support for each other? be liable for each other's debts?) and #2 why this status should be limited to couples in marriage or marriage-like relationships. Such a status could be just as useful for the situation of an elderly childless person being watched out for by neighbors, a situation we'll find increasingly common, I'm sure.

I wish it were so that Newt's marriage were an outlier, but I don't think so. RFK, Jr, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and just about every other celebrity couple fits this model of the post-divorce marriage of affair partners.

Celebrities are outliers. Society most certainly looks down on that practice. And Newt is even an outlier among outliers with his three marriages.

And while I don't support Savage's model of negotiated non-monogamy, I think it's more ethical than the Newt Gingrich model of marriage.

I disagree. One is a failure to meet an ideal. The other is to not even try.

Well, if the figure regarding the divorce rate for heterosexual marriage is useless than I assume you believe figures concerning same-sex relationships are useless as well, correct?

As far as supporting SSM only if people vote for it, that’s exactly why we don’t subject rights to the vote of the majority, such as was the case for interracial marriage.

My point about hate being generated by fear in regards to the gays can be clearly seen by the rhetoric used. Gays are a “threat” to traditional marriage, they’re a “threat” to raising children, they’re a “threat” to religious liberty. Threat connotates a fear of something. The fear of the gays since they are “not normal” is used by folks like Perkins and Fischer to generate hate which translates into action and money making.

I don’t think the Japanese are as hostile based on what I saw during my time spent in country. In some respects, they seem lest uptight about sex in general. But again, it’s about the validity of statistic on the behavior of gays in societies were they have been marginalized from mainstream society for centuries. And religion has a major part in that marginalization.

Dave: The issue is simply treating other people with respect and dignity and having the humility to admit that you don't know (and shouldn't know) the intimate details of other people's lives.

What issue? Marriage? No, it isn't. Marriage is a fundamental social institution that isn't just about the individuals involved. I cannot see any claims to "respect" or "dignity" superseding my objections to, for example, allowing polygamous marriage in this country. My personal capacity for humility, and "the intimate details" of the lives of people who want to contract polygamous marriages, couldn't be more irrelevant to my considerations.

What other form of human behavior that is comparable to the deeply personal trait of sexuality and that has also been ostracized by society would you study to determine the impacts of that ostracized activity on the stability of marriage?"

I don't for a moment agree that "marriage" = "sex practices" but if you want to limit it that way....

I think that the rate of divorce and family disfunction for people who are into sex practices that society disapproves of (sexual perversions or infidelity) is likely very high.

Do you think this is actually what you want to argue about?

I was thinking more in terms of the *person* being disapproved of. In which case there are a number of social and cultural minority groups that might work as study subjects... gypsies, maybe, or orthodox Jews, or the lowest caste Indians... There are any number of *people* who face constant social ostracism. And when they get together... does that help them stay together better, or lead to break ups?

Maybe the break-ups among gays aren't due to outside pressure at all, but from the notion, such as Savage promotes, that it's all about their wieners and where they want to put them.

Peter Hoh: Fukuyama: "Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries."[...]

If my grandmother's ideas of marriage were still held by the overwhelming majority of Americans, we wouldn't be debating same-sex marriage.

Peter, the only reason we're having this debate is because "many Americans" do, too, still hold your grandmother's idea of what marriage is all about, regardless of what some social scientist opines about "many Americans" seeing marriage as nothing more than "a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults".

And if that were the case, if our cultural understanding of marriage were similar to what my grandmother held, I probably wouldn't be arguing for same-sex marriage.

But you are arguing with people whose "cultural understanding" of marriage is very similar to your grandmother's. So why don't you argue with them in good faith, instead of insisting that they have some sort of obligation to accept the predictable consequences of somebody else's "cultural understanding of marriage"?

It's blindingly obvious that nobody expressing reservations here about ssm thinks that marriage is nothing more than "a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults".

Like Freeman at 12:39, I think that "the real value of gay marriage is as a stabilizing and conservatizing force of gay people, just as it is for straight people."

You've just finished arguing, essentially, that Person A is somehow logically compelled to support ssm because some Straight People B, C, and D have already "redefined" marriage as having nothing to do with anything but their internal emotional and sexual states. So exactly how is this now "anything goes" institution supposed to instill these (so you claim) now non-requisite habits and virtues in gays?

Well, if the figure regarding the divorce rate for heterosexual marriage is useless than I assume you believe figures concerning same-sex relationships are useless as well, correct?

Yes, recognizing one widely-cited figure is useless is proof positive that all figures are false.

As far as supporting SSM only if people vote for it, that’s exactly why we don’t subject rights to the vote of the majority, such as was the case for interracial marriage.

To be blunt, there is nothing a gay man can do that I cannot. I, also, cannot marry a man.

You want a right that I do not personally possess. Fine. Make a case and argue it politically.

There is no actual equality argument here.

Does not mean that they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Just that they have to make the argument to the populace.

The fear of the gays since they are “not normal” is used by folks like Perkins and Fischer to generate hate which translates into action and money making

If somebody is a tiny percentage of the population, by any rational definition of the word, they are "not normal".

I don’t think the Japanese are as hostile based on what I saw during my time spent in country

You likely missed the rather rampant racism that exists in Japan as well.

In some respects, they seem lest uptight about sex in general.

LESS uptight?

You know why they created the concept of tentacle rape?

There is an actual reason why they did it.

But again, it’s about the validity of statistic on the behavior of gays in societies were they have been marginalized from mainstream society for centuries. And religion has a major part in that marginalization.

Plus, the real value of gay marriage is as a stabilizing and conservatizing force of gay people, just as it is for straight people. Gay marriage has nothing to do with rights, in my opinion. Legal marriage is necessarily discriminatory. That's the whole point of it, conferring special benefits on partnerships of special benefit to society.

Exactly, Freeman!

And Synova- you are so right. There would be no reason to enter into a special agreement if it were all just easy. You make the promise because it is work, and valuable.

Could not the cited figures concerning same-sex relationships be false as well?

If you are not gay, why would you want to marry another man? Therefore, it’s not an issue for you and so you have no concerns about being deprived the rights and benefits you enjoy in your heterosexual marriage, assuming you are married of course.

As far as your comment that if somebody is a tiny percentage of the population, by any rational definition of the word, they are "not normal", what’s your thoughts on geniuses? Should they be discriminated against since they are “not normal”?

I’m aware of racism in Japan, but I’m not sure you should make assumptions about what I’ve have or not experienced.

As far as the treatment of gays in atheist societies, what society are you referring to? And again, many religions instill fear towards the gays. Fear is a very powerful and useful tool that can be exploited.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN."

It's not just a intellectual debate to you. Which I find odd. What did I say to personally insult you?

Indeed, it is.

My problem with you in the birth control debate was that you kept bringing up the medicine aspect, not understanding that that should be covered. No matter how many times someone told you that, you kept bringing it up.

Other than that, yes, it is an intellectual/political debate. But you seem able to understand that Americans might not get Canada, without understanding that maybe you don't get the US.

That's all. If I seem aggressive, it's just that I'm trying to get you to see that.

I've never said anything to indicate I felt personally insulted by you. I just don't see how you can hide behind the "you just don't get Canada!" thing you are saying here while acting personally insulted when people (including me!) say you just don't get the US. But you don't really get the US.

Could not the cited figures concerning same-sex relationships be false as well?

Can you cite what the problems would be? Notice that I actually mentioned the specific problem with the divorce rate stat.

If you are not gay, why would you want to marry another man?

Again, you're asking us to legalize something nobody currently has ever had a legal right to before.

Which is people vote for it, that is perfectly valid. NY's passage is wonderful and I'm happy for it. By the same standard, NC and 30 other states refusing is also equally valid.

If not, then it is difficult to argue that it unequal unless, somehow, I can marry a man.

Therefore, it’s not an issue for you and so you have no concerns about being deprived the rights and benefits you enjoy in your heterosexual marriage, assuming you are married of course.

I have no rights that any man married to any woman doesn't also possess.

That I don't want to marry a man is immaterial. If I have no right that a gay man does not have, there is no issue with equal treatment.

As far as your comment that if somebody is a tiny percentage of the population, by any rational definition of the word, they are "not normal", what’s your thoughts on geniuses? Should they be discriminated against since they are “not normal”?

Should geniuses have "rights" non-geniuses don't have?

I'd argue no unless a populace votes for it.

As far as the treatment of gays in atheist societies, what society are you referring to?

In any case, things do get odd in these blog threads. In the b.c. thread people were saying all sorts of wacky thing. I don't remember if it was you, but somebody wanted me to randomly disavow Bill what's his name comedian. The only reason I knew who he was is because I've lived in the States. He wasn't a thread topic. It was odd.

I have no idea who this was or what you're talking about.

All I remember is you kept bringing up how birth control can be used as medicine and it should be covered, and you were told yes, it should be covered, but you kept bringing it up as if nobody had responded to you.

We were talking about historical definitions of socialism, so maybe that is what you are thinking about.

No, somebody named "Canuck" said it. Urg, don't tell me what you think I'm thinking about.Other people asked about the comment, too. I'll see if I can find it, but as I said, I thought maybe someone had taken your account.

As I stated up thread, I’m skeptical of the statistics concerning same-sex couples because I believe their behavior has been influenced by the fact they as a group who have been marginalized by mainstream society for ages. So citing a specific figure doesn’t matter to me in that case. However, since you questioned the statistics for heterosexual marriage, do you also apply the same tests towards the stats for same-sex relationships?

You stated that I’m asking us to legalize something nobody currently has ever had a legal right to before. So? How about interracial marriage or voting rights for women in this country? If left to the vote of the majority, those rights may still be prohibited today.

As far as your question should geniuses have "rights" non-geniuses don't have, gays aren’t asking for any rights heterosexuals don’t have. They’re simply asking for the same rights.

Germany was a Christian country even under the Nazis. There are Christians in Vietnam. Joe Stalin was studying to be a priest so he may have picked up some of his hatred for the gays from that experience, who knows.

I think the reason many gays come across as belligerent is because they’ve grown tired of the discrimination and hatred from being a marginalized group of society for so long.

@Petter Hoh: Thanks for the FF link. It's a bit dated now (pre-911) and he was always such a big champion of liberal democracy yet look how liberal democracy cannot seem to fiscally function with plausible stability.

That aside, I still think Dan Savage is nuts. I can't see why anybody can't see through his ruse--he's just a gay horn dog looking for legitimacy.

Through steadfast efforts initially at the state and local levels culminating with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

And I see the gays fighting the same process. And I wonder why we, in this country that was founded with a document that states all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, make the realization of that dream so difficult for some members of our society.

36fsfiend said,"And I see the gays fighting the same process. And I wonder why we, in this country that was founded with a document that states all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, make the realization of that dream so difficult for some members of our society."

""...voting rights for women in this country? If left to the vote of the majority, those rights may still be prohibited today."

Just curious... how, exactly, do you think women did get the vote in the U.S.?"

There is no "right" to vote, or to marry. When the state grants the franchise, then certain groups cannot be deprived of it. There is no amendment that states that there is a Federal right to marry for gays when the right is given.

There are five amendments to the US Constitution which deal with the right to vote. The 14th amendment states that male citizens of the US are eligible to vote. The 15th clarifies this by insuring that race or previous condition of servitude is no bar to eligibility to cast a ballot. The 19th gives women the right to vote. The 24th amendment disallows the use of a poll tax, which would bar people of lower incomes from being able to vote. The 26th amendment lowers the age of eligibility from 21 years old to 18 years. All of these are contingent upon the person being a citizen of the United States.

"Lawyer Mom, who says that you can only marry for love and monogamy now? For what it's worth, this business of marrying for love is a rather new development in the long history of marriage. And it's a likely source of many of the changes that the last two centuries have wrought on marriage."

You are quite right, Peter Hoh. The reasons for marrying have indeed "evolved." Marriage (and why not throw in women's rights, while we're at it?) has a long and fluid history.

Speaking of, it was not terribly long ago -- yesterday, maybe? -- that feminists were bashing the institution of marriage. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/lgb.asp

They claim marriage enslaves women and is just downright EVIL. In a blinding stroke of irony, those same feminists now argue for the enslavement of gay men. So pardon me and be patient if I seem a bit confused.

So critique my premise, someone? Anyone? The premise being: if we agree that marriage is whatever we define it to be, we can support it with whatever reasons we choose, including none at all. And if that be the case, what is marriage, exactly?

Maybe this is a good thing, maybe not. But surely we can agree that it deserves a great deal of thought.

Today, marriage is considered special -- a binding, legal, life-long commitment. In sickness and in health, until death do us part, and all my dental crowns.

Years ago, my husband and I visited with a couple down the street who were rabidly against gay marriage. Their argument was a talking-point: that gay marriage threatened their own marriage. But they could never articulate why. We were left, after they did, scratching our heads.

And I've written about my own support of gay marriage. But let me qualify that: I'm in favor of gays marrying into the institution of marriage as we define it now.

My thought -- and where I'd appreciate some scrutiny -- is that marriage will soon be sui generis. It will become an entirely different legal entity than what it is today.

Because make no mistake: right now, marriage is a separate legal entity with attendant legal rights and detriments. In most states, creditors can go after either spouse for the debts of the other incurred during marriage. My husband is painfully aware of this fact, as I have racked up an enormous dental bill.

Before we got married, he sized up my balance sheet, and who can blame him? He could be assuming a lot. Marriage, in Joe Biden's words, is a big f#cing deal. But should it be?

When we redefine marriage (and eliminate or change the "traditional" reasons and needs for marrying) the societal underpinnings and support for marriage will vanish.

All I am asking is, what will this look like? And do we like it? When there is a fundamental shift in the meaning of marriage and the purpose for marriage changes or disappears, how does that change the structure of society? And is that good or bad?

I don't know the answer, but I've got an inkling. I do know it's a topic worthy of lengthy and thoughtful discussion. Maybe we'll decide that marriage has no value.

But if we decide that marriage is valuable in its own right -- and most gays clearly believe it is (they want in) -- we need to explain why is it valuable. And we protect its value.

As I stated up thread, I’m skeptical of the statistics concerning same-sex couples because I believe their behavior has been influenced by the fact they as a group who have been marginalized by mainstream society for ages.

So...you infantilize them? Can't expect homosexuals to abide by the same rules as regular people? That is some impressive condescending bullshit.

So citing a specific figure doesn’t matter to me in that case. However, since you questioned the statistics for heterosexual marriage, do you also apply the same tests towards the stats for same-sex relationships?

Again --- I cited the specific problem with the stat (read back: it was pretty clear). Either you do the same or just admit that you feel gays are so brutally inept that expecting them to live by normal societal standards is just too much for them.

You stated that I’m asking us to legalize something nobody currently has ever had a legal right to before. So? How about interracial marriage or voting rights for women in this country? If left to the vote of the majority, those rights may still be prohibited today.

2) Can I marry a man? No? Then gays are asking for something I do not have.

Germany was a Christian country even under the Nazis

The Nazis persecuted the Church. And hated homosexuals vehemently.

There are Christians in Vietnam. Joe Stalin was studying to be a priest so he may have picked up some of his hatred for the gays from that experience, who knows.

The mind boggles at such utter bullshit. N. Vietnam was explicitly atheistic. They didn't much care for homosexuals.

And, yes, it was that evil studying for the priesthood that turned Stalin into a gay hating bigot --- hey, can you demonstrate that he was kind to them before that?

If not, why are you wasting time with such intellectually devoid hypotheticals?

I think the reason many gays come across as belligerent is because they’ve grown tired of the discrimination and hatred from being a marginalized group of society for so long.

That'll keep people marginalized quite effectively.

If anything I can do can make Andy Sullivan or Dan Savage miserable, I will happily do it.

Because I hate gays?

No.

Because I hate THEM specifically.

And I see the gays fighting the same process.

Hardly. They are seeking to have courts do what they cannot get passed legislatively.

You know, the exact OPPOSITE of what women or blacks did.

And I wonder why we, in this country that was founded with a document that states all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, make the realization of that dream so difficult for some members of our society.

So, what members should have their dreams quashed? Because not all dreams can be allowed.

You're aware of that, right? Some groups are not going to get what they want.

Heroin addicts won't get what they want. Pedophiles as well. Some groups have to live with not getting what they want.

Feel free to establish your finishing line and then proceed to justify it.

I don’t infantilize people in same-sex marriages. You may disagree with the method used in determining the number of divorces among heterosexual couples but the figure is relatively high. Obviously, making a marriage work requires a lot of time and effort which doesn't always succeed. The stigmatism, discrimination and social hatred same-sex couples face adds to the burden. Consequently, I wouldn’t be at all surprised for the percent of divorce/breakup for same-sex couples to be higher than that for heterosexual couples. Let’s wait a few generations for most of the bigotry and hate to die out and then see what the statistics have to say.

Actually interracial marriage was legalized by the Loving v. Virginia case that overturned legislation against it.

I think most will agree that marriage falls into the category of the pursuit of happiness as put forth in the Declaration of Independence. To justify discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination really exists.

As far as your claim the Nazis persecuted the Church, here’s some evidence to the contrary:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

As far as the belligerence of gay advocates keeping the group marginalized, I agree that it may not always be beneficial. However, I think many people will rely on personal experiences to form their opinion. I have, and it appears so have the Millennials:

As far as the gays using the courts to gain their rights, this is no different from what those who wanted to overturn the rules against interracial marriage did.

Because not all dreams can be allowed? Really? Who are you, God Almighty, to decide who or who cannot fulfill their dreams? Your comparison of the gays to heroin addicts and pedophiles is specious and shows ignorance.

My finishing line is a question: Are you a Christian by any chance? If so, why do you hate Andy Sullivan and Dan Savage?

I don’t infantilize people in same-sex marriages. You may disagree with the method used in determining the number of divorces among heterosexual couples but the figure is relatively high. Obviously, making a marriage work requires a lot of time and effort which doesn't always succeed. The stigmatism, discrimination and social hatred same-sex couples face adds to the burden

To give you a hint --- force this through via judicial fiat and those problems will increase exponentially.

Let’s wait a few generations for most of the bigotry and hate to die out and then see what the statistics have to say.

Given that plenty of people make money off of the "bigotry" and "hate" --- that day will never come.

Hell, listen to civil rights groups and there has been no improvement since the 1950's.

Actually interracial marriage was legalized by the Loving v. Virginia case that overturned legislation against it.

No, that case showed that legislation directly in violation of the Constitution is illegal. Seeing as how blacks and whites should have been equal, issues in marrying men and women would be necessarily illegal.

I think most will agree that marriage falls into the category of the pursuit of happiness as put forth in the Declaration of Independence

1) Dumbest argument I have ever seen on any issue.

2) If somebody finds murdering people to make them happy, is stopping them illegal? Your asinine argument indicates it would be, so I'll give you another argument to put a moment of thought into your comments.

To justify discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination really exists.

There is no discrimination as gays aren't specifically barred from marrying the same sex. All people are barred. Even if you don't like it, there is no argument of unequal treatment.

As far as your claim the Nazis persecuted the Church, here’s some evidence to the contrary:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+were+the+German+Christians%3F

As far as the gays using the courts to gain their rights, this is no different from what those who wanted to overturn the rules against interracial marriage did.

Except interracial marriage was specifically in violation of the Constitution while banning gay marriage could not be less in violation if it tried.

Because not all dreams can be allowed? Really? Who are you, God Almighty, to decide who or who cannot fulfill their dreams? Your comparison of the gays to heroin addicts and pedophiles is specious and shows ignorance.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+an+analogy%3F

I'm tired of holding your hand here.

My finishing line is a question: Are you a Christian by any chance? If so, why do you hate Andy Sullivan and Dan Savage?

Because I'm not Jesus. I have sin. Shockingly enough, being Christian and being absolutely perfect aren't synonymous. I can cite Biblical quotations if this concept is too complex?

Someone who finds murdering people makes them happy is denying a right (i.e., life) to others. Two people of the same sex who marry do not deny a right from others. Again, your “analogy” is specious and shows ignorance.

Regarding your comment that there is no discrimination as gays aren't specifically barred from marrying the same sex, you really need to read up on the issue.

Interesting article about Germany Christians. German Protestants aligning themselves with antisemitic and Führerprinzip ideological principles – so Christlike of them. No wonder the gays were persecuted. How about the Catholic Germans? Where were they?

You stated: “Except interracial marriage was specifically in violation of the Constitution…” Where in the Constitution was interracial marriage specifically prohibited?

Again, your “analogy” of comparing the gays to heroin addicts and pedophiles is specious and shows ignorance. Heroin addicts and pedophiles are not living a life in the pursuit of happiness. They are living a nightmare that in many cases, particularly those involving pedophiles, destroys the lives of others. Same-sex marriage deprives no one else of their unalienable rights. You really need to do better.

I understand the concept of sin. However, as I understand the Christian faith you should continually be striving to avoid sin and as a Christian you should follow the words of Christ regarding love for your enemies and praying for those who persecute you. You bold statement “Because I hate THEM specifically” seems to indicate you are making no attempt to love your enemies. Are you another one of these faux Christians?

Someone who finds murdering people makes them happy is denying a right (i.e., life) to others. Two people of the same sex who marry do not deny a right from others. Again, your “analogy” is specious and shows ignorance.

You're the one saying I'm God for noting that not all people can have all of their desired honored. I'm asking where your limit is.

Regarding your comment that there is no discrimination as gays aren't specifically barred from marrying the same sex, you really need to read up on the issue.

Gay men CANNOT marry women? Where?

Interesting article about Germany Christians. German Protestants aligning themselves with antisemitic and Führerprinzip ideological principles – so Christlike of them

Man, another Andy R. Yes, ALL Christians are anti-Semitics and pro-Hitler. Common thing.

Ya caught us, Sparky.

No wonder the gays were persecuted. How about the Catholic Germans? Where were they?

So, yes, I DO have to break out another one.

Fine.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+was+the+confessing+church%3F

Note that I'm doing your job for you.

Where in the Constitution was interracial marriage specifically prohibited?

Typo. The barring of it was specifically in violation.

Again, your “analogy” of comparing the gays to heroin addicts and pedophiles is specious and shows ignorance

True. I was ignorant that you are a moron and not simply somebody horrificly uneducated. My bad.

I shouldn't criticize you further because it's not your fault that your problems exist. It's likely bad parenting.

Heroin addicts and pedophiles are not living a life in the pursuit of happiness.

A blithering idiot once posted "Who are you, God Almighty, to decide who or who cannot fulfill their dreams?"

Same-sex marriage deprives no one else of their unalienable rights. You really need to do better.

The issue isn't that you understand things. It's that what you understand is so wrong.

However, as I understand the Christian faith you should continually be striving to avoid sin and as a Christian you should follow the words of Christ regarding love for your enemies and praying for those who persecute you.

Nobody is perfect. As long as they are harmed horribly, I'm cool. If Romney's first act as President is to kick Andy Sully out of the US, I will be quite happy.

You bold statement “Because I hate THEM specifically” seems to indicate you are making no attempt to love your enemies. Are you another one of these faux Christians?

Well, I don't hate Jews or love Hitler, so to YOU, yes, I'm a faux Christian.

To somebody who is capable of thought --- no.

My goal is to love my enemies. I am not there yet.

Like you, for example. I don't hate you. I pity you. Incredibly so. I cannot fathom life with a likely genetic inability to actually think. You are doing well with your whole knowing how to type thing, so perhaps, you can be TAUGHT to think at some point in history.

You’re equating the issue of same-sex marriage with abortion? Another specious analogy or actually a deflection. Again, how do you know problems with same-sex relationships will increase exponentially if the issue is forced through the courts?

I don’t believe Dan Savage claims to be a Christian as Perkins and Fischer do who are making money from stirring up hate and fear against the gays. Not very Christlike.

Why don’t you use your silly Google tool to look up Loving v. Virginia and read up about the case. Seeing that you had confusion about the Constitution specifically prohibiting interracial marriage, a review of the case might be in order.

In regards to my limits on accommodating the desires of people, it stops when a person’s actions infringe on the rights of others. People in same-sex marriages are not limiting or infringing on the rights of others. They are only asking for the same rights including the pursuit of happiness afforded to heterosexual couples.

This issue is not about gay men being able to marry women. Don’t be so obtuse.

I never stated all Christians were sympathetic with the Nazis. And please, avoid the deflection with Andy R.

I asked you about the Catholics. Instead of your silly Google tool, let me provide an interesting passage for you:

"On March 23, 1933, Adolf Hitler addressed the Reichstag, in the course of which he acknowledged Christian belief as the 'unshakeable foundation of the moral and ethical life of our people'. Cardinal Bertram, on March 28, announced that the bishops had dropped their prohibitions against Nazi membership. The bishops' decision opened the way for a Concordat between the Holy See and Hitler's government. The Concordat was signed on July 20, 1933. It gave the Catholic Church what it wanted in order to preserve the autonomy of ecclesiastical institutions and their religious activities; it assured Hitler that the Church would end so-called political Catholicism. Article 31 acknowledged the Church would not support social or political causes against Hitler."

In regard to your response to me pointing out that your “analogy” of comparing the gays to heroin addicts and pedophiles is specious and shows ignorance, ad hominem retorts show an inability to effectively understand and address the issue.

As far as your comment that somebody injecting heroin doesn't do you any harm, how about the law enforcement officials injured or killed in fighting the drug trade? Read up about the drug trade and how they exploit children.

Again, your comment about Romney kicking Andy Sully out of the US and that act making you happy doesn’t seem very Christian. And as far as your pity, I’m not in need of it. I think that you would be better off to search your heart and soul to find the truth and ask your lord and savior for forgiveness, if in fact you truly believe in his teachings.

"Again, your “analogy” of comparing the gays to heroin addicts and pedophiles is specious and shows ignorance

True. I was ignorant that you are a moron and not simply somebody horrificly uneducated. My bad.

I shouldn't criticize you further because it's not your fault that your problems exist. It's likely bad parenting."

In truth Damieck's statement is a false analogy in that heroin addicts and pedophiles are engaging in an illegal activity unlike married same-sex individuals who are not breaking any law. There are legally married same-sex couples in the U.S. Many were granted that right not by a court but by a duly elected legislature and governor. In the most significant case regarding an electoral effort to overturn a court decision granting same-sex marriage, Loving v. Virginia has been cited as relevant. It's interesting to read the Wikipedia article on Loving v. Virginia and note how courts created all sorts of "creative" solutions to prevent race-mixing. Behind all the "logic" was nothing more than simple racism - fear of the "other" - primitive reactionary emotion-based thinking disguised as reason.

I anticipate that I will now have the honor of being called a moron or product of "bad parenting"; because the unarmed in a battle of wits always resorts to personal attacks.

"Given that official US policy is that marriage is between a man and a woman and the law in at least 31 states is the same --- hardly.

Nice try.

Please try and do better in the future."

OK, let me try again - this time with simple words for you -

drugs - bad - go to jailhurt child - bad - go to jail

man man or woman woman marry - ok in some states but makes some people feel "icky" so some states and the fed don't call them married - BUT - no law broken - NO JAIL

SEE? False Analogy

Of course, the federal government already recognizes common law property rights for same-sex couples, since the fed has to recognize state contract and property law. Oh and the treatment of same-sex married couples with children creates a lot of confusion for passport control when they return to the US. (NO they're not breaking any laws either). And what if a couple is married in one state legally and then is transferred to another state? Can popular votes nullify contracts and property law? And how immutable is gender? Read that Wikipedia article on Loving v. Virginia and note that court decision that nullified a marriage because the court "observed" a woman and determined that she was of mixed-race. Consider that transgendered people are having their legal gender changed. There are instances of a husband changing his physical gender to female but staying legally married to his wife. Or what about same-sex military couples getting married and demanding married housing? Is your head spinning yet? Sorry that it isn't all black and white, but it never has been. Eventually, all of these problems will have to be dealt with by finding DOMA to be unconstitutional and requiring states to recognize marriages performed by other states.

“I am now ‘solitary and alone,’ having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone; and should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.” written by James Buchanan in 1844, 13 years before being elected POTUS. Scholars note that for much of the 19th Century America was much more tolerant of same-sex relationships. It was understood that there were different types of people in the world, and that you should treat others with respect and dignity if you wanted to be treated with the same. Where'd they get that crazy idea? (Matthew 22:36-37)